This is the last of four parts. You can read the first three here.
SO FAR in this ‘putting the record straight’ account, I have stuck to things that have already been confirmed. Here I’m going to give my opinion, my thoughts on what lies behind the Democrats using ICE as a weapon to batter Trump and, unlike mainstream media, I’m clearly signalling the difference.
My strong suspicion is that what is happening is more than just quid pro quo corruption – the importation of votes, or even the race-based ideology that sees brown-skinned immigrants as more deserving of support and care than white-skinned citizens. I don’t think it’s just ideological lunacy behind all this. My belief is that it’s co-ordinated, orchestrated, clever and deeply malignant, and that it’s not just about immigration. I think it’s about Democrat, globalist and progressive power and an attempt to ensure that no borders can be enforced, no immigration laws can be held to, and no limits can be placed on Democrat policies even when they aren’t in power.
In other words the official leadership of Minnesota is involved, and it’s at the scale now of insurrection against the Trump government. The point is to make it impossible to enact any policy other than an open borders one, to make it impossible to govern unless you are a leftist, and to use domestic terrorism to achieve this. Unlike peaceful protests (such as the Canadian freedom convoys) it’s not about the freedom to protest against a single policy. It’s much more inherently disposed to violence and it’s much more about bringing down an elected government through any and all means. That explains the active seeking of violent confrontations with ICE.
I am not the only one to consider this to be the case.
What follows is a detailed description of the anti-ICE protests as insurgency, following the same techniques extremists have used elsewhere, particularly in Third World nations, from someone called Eric Schwalm on X:
‘As a former Special Forces Warrant Officer with multiple rotations running counterinsurgency ops – both hunting insurgents and trying to separate them from sympathetic populations – I’ve seen organized resistance up close. From Anbar to Helmand, the pattern is familiar: spotters, cutouts, dead drops (or modern equivalents), disciplined comms, role specialization, and a willingness to absorb casualties while bleeding the stronger force slowly.
‘What’s unfolding in Minneapolis right now isn’t “protest”. It’s low-level insurgency infrastructure, built by people who’ve clearly studied the playbook.
‘Signal groups at 1,000-member cap per zone. Dedicated roles: mobile chasers, plate checkers logging vehicle data into shared databases, 24/7 dispatch nodes vectoring assets, SALUTE-style reporting (Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment) on suspected federal vehicles. Daily chat rotations and timed deletions to frustrate forensic recovery. Vetting processes for new joiners. Mutual aid from sympathetic locals (teachers providing cover, possible PD tip-offs on license plate lookups). Home-base co-ordination points. Rapid escalation from observation to physical obstruction – or worse.
‘This isn’t spontaneous outrage. This is C2 (command and control) with redundancy, OPSEC hygiene, and task organization that would make a SF team sergeant nod in recognition. Replace “ICE agents” with “occupying coalition forces” and the structure maps almost 1:1 to early-stage urban cells we hunted in the mid-2000s.
‘The most sobering part? It’s domestic. Funded, trained (somewhere), and directed by people who live in the same country they’re trying to paralyze law enforcement in. When your own citizens build and operate this level of parallel intelligence and rapid-response network against federal officers – complete with doxxing, vehicle pursuits, and harassment that’s already turned lethal – you’re no longer dealing with civil disobedience. You’re facing a distributed resistance that’s learned the lessons of successful insurgencies: stay below the kinetic threshold most of the time, force over-reaction when possible, maintain popular support through narrative, and never present a single center of gravity.
‘I spent years training partner forces to dismantle exactly this kind of apparatus. Now pieces of it are standing up in American cities, enabled by elements of local government and civil society. That should keep every thinking American awake at night.
‘Not because I want escalation. But because history shows these things don’t de-escalate on their own once the infrastructure exists and the cadre believe they’re winning the information war.
‘We either recognize what we’re actually looking at—or we pretend it’s still just “activism” until the structures harden and spread.
‘Your call, America. But from where I sit, this isn’t January 2026 politics any more.
‘It’s phase one of something we’ve spent decades trying to keep off our own soil.’
Now I do not know who this person is, but I do know that Fox News correspondent Alexis McAdams confirmed the presence of ‘spotters’ working in exactly this way when reporting from Minneapolis on the protests and that she described these protests as the most organised she had ever seen. I also know that many other commentators with intelligence experience responded in agreement with Schwalm’s post.
I want to be honest on this. I can’t confirm that it is true. All I can say is that the prior things above it are true, and they lead to the kind of conclusions Schwalm is making. It’s not at all irrational to view this level of ‘resistance’ as a controlled insurgency.
Schwalm and others have commented on the co-ordinated nature of the anti-ICE protests in terms of their insurgency tactics. But proof of this being co-ordinated domestic terrorism also comes from those who have investigated the funding behind these protests and plans for their extension. According toconservative broadcaster Bill O’Reilly: ‘A network of far-left groups, backed by a pro‑CCP billionaire living in China, is preparing to cripple America with a co-ordinated anti‑ICE shutdown.’
He says: ‘These protests aren’t organic. This is a top-down operation – and it’s gaining traction . . . radical organizations tied tobillionaire Marxist Neville Roy Singham are calling for a nationwide strike: no work, no school, no shopping. Activist Linda Sarsour made the goal explicit: “We will bring this country to a halt”.’
O’Reilly says the groups involved include The People’s Forum, CODEPINK, and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, all backed by Singham, who lives in luxury in Shanghai.Singham, he says, is ‘funnelling millions of dollars into the United States’ to fuel unrest. ‘And he works with the Beijing government.’
Daniel Greenfield reports on some of the groups on the ground driving anti-ICE insurgency in Minnesota – the Somali Muslim Network, the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) and ‘dark-money’ groups – and of how the terror leader of the Minnesota branch (CAIR-MN), Jaylani Hussein, boasted ‘I think this is the end for ICE’, as the riots escalated, illegal alien criminals were shielded; as a web of Muslim groups, politicians, and dark-money foundations mobilised to dismantle federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota.
None of this aspect of the protests is being reported by mainstream media, who either omit or remain conveniently unaware of the fact that funding from a CCP-linked billionaire is supporting these protests, and that any national government facing foreign-based funding of domestic ‘protest movements’ that are increasingly violent would act as the Trump administration is acting, if not more urgently, against such forces.
Let’s say you agree with me that it’s not protest, it’s more than that. Let’s say you realise, at the very least, that the depictions of ICE as Nazis and Trump as a fascist dictator are dangerously false and hysterical. What does any of it mean for the UK?
Well, we have already had the BLM movement, with our MSM doing just as much to stoke violent protest as the US media. Which points to what we would face if any UK government seriously addressed our mass immigration, seriously tried to prevent crime or terrorism from our immigrant communities, or seriously tried to enforce our borders and deport foreign criminals. We would have ‘protests’ that are violent. We would have the same engineered confrontations. And we would have a running, leftist insurgency against policies that won an election and are designed to protect existing citizens.
Assuming, of course, that any party offering a populist platform isn’t simply banned before such an election.
If the attempt to make conservative or populist policies impossible succeeds in the US, if policy is not determined by what we vote for but by who is prepared to be the most violent and disruptive after an election, then we get a permanent dictatorship of the most offended, where only left-wing, progressive and globalist policies are ever allowed.
Which is precisely why the mainstream media is lying so thoroughly about it, and want you to mindlessly agree with their uncritical assessment that enforcing the law on immigration is a form of Nazism.
Faced with this huge and orchestrated opposition, and with relentless biased media coverage that seems determined to incite more violence, there are worrying signs that the Trump administration is buckling under the pressure. Following discussions with Tim Walz in Minnesota, an agreement was reached for ICE presence to be reduced and withdrawn.
This could be the worst blunder the administration has ever made domestically. Democrats are emboldened by such a deal, and Republicans frustrated and dismayed. But like a parent dealing with a badly behaved child giving in for a moment’s peace, any sense of weakness will create more of the behaviour you don’t want. Which in this much more serious context of what amounts to an insurgency, more violence from people who have been given the message that domestic terrorism works.
That is a lesson that violent left-wing activist groups are learning throughout the Western world. If they scream and riot, they get what they want. If they engage in outright rebellion, they still get what they want. There could hardly be a more disastrous precedent than the one that would be set if Trump and his administration accept Democrat lawlessness as an issue too sensitive to deal with.
